Saw Star Trek. Yes, it’s great fun. But I want to take a moment to celebrate a contributor not noted on the IMDb page. Really, it ought to read: “Star Trek (2009), starring Chris Pine, Zachary Quinto, and… SOOO MANY LENS FLARES.”

Lens flares are all over Star Trek, even — especially — when there’s no bright light on screen. They’re different shapes, different colors, but they’re omnipresent. They streak across the frame, across characters’ faces:

They’re most evident on the bridge of the Enterprise, but even in dark and dingy scenes, there’s the suggestion of something luminous just off-camera:

Maybe it was my imagination, but it even felt like the flares had a certain character-specific quality, like the recurring melodies in Peter and the Wolf. Spock’s flare was long and linear, straight across the eyes:

Kirk’s flare was a spark of pink light circling his face. It’s hard to see here — look for the three bars hovering over the scratch on his cheek:

Haven’t seen the film yet, but I sorta’ love this. It reminds me of Sunshine, which many people hated but I really enjoyed – its emphasis on light/refraction was obviously more central to the plot but if, as the linked article suggests, this adds a similar sense of mystery and wonder lurking just out of shot, that’s amazing. Can’t wait to see it.

Even back in the heady days of Minority Report, the special effects guys were putting digital lens flare into all sorts of completely CGI shots. It was interesting that the lens flare here was from real lightsources.

It still struck me as very strange and they even added some more traditional hexagonal and less streaky lens flare to the space scenes. Battlestar at least simulates a camera look for its space shots, so it makes sense to see flare, but why is there an implied lens on the bridge in Star Trek?